►* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <? 
 
 
 7. " 1 
 
 
 « M o v o "^ y 
 
 y c°''« ^ 
 
 ^ w ..v-.>. 
 
 
 , o. 
 
.** v »<i U' >v 
 
 
 
 
 A V *x 
 
 <+ *- 
 
 ^6* 
 
 
 » ° ' A, ^ " " <5> ^ ' " ° ^ ++ ' ' ' 4$ 
 
 * ^%>k ^ ** * jife*- ^ / * mid'* % *+ • 
 
 r»cy 
 
 
 
 /»*• 
 
 ^ ** # 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 40* ^ '•• »* A <> 
 
 "0V 5 
 
 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 MR. J. L. JOHNSON, OF KENTUCKY, 
 
 THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA: 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED 
 STATES, APRIL 8, 1850. 
 
 
 Mr. Chairman: At no period, perhaps, since the foundation of this Govern- 
 ment to the present moment, has there ever been a higher degree of excite- 
 ment, both in this House and throughout the country, than is found to exist at 
 this time in reference to the bill for the admission of California as one of the 
 States of this Union, and the passage of a bill organizing a suitable form of gov- 
 erment for the residue of the territory recently acquired by the treaty with 
 Mexico. 
 
 In fact, sir, the intense degree of feeling on these subjects, in all portions of 
 the country, admonishes us that, before we take such action in reference to 
 them as shall be decisive, we should thoroughly consider the consequences 
 that may grow out of our legislation, having a due regard to the harmonious 
 union of these States. 
 
 Hasty and inconsiderate legislation, even on unimportant subjects, is at all 
 times, and under all circumstances, greatly to be deprecated. But when great 
 questions — affecting the honor, the political and pecuniary interests of nearly 
 one-half of the people of the United States — are thrown upon the legislative 
 arena for consideration, it becomes a matter of the deepest importance for us 
 to bring to the task that lies before us a degree of calmness and reflection com- 
 mensurate with the importance of the duties that devolve upon us. Passion 
 and prejudice, both of which are inconsistent with reason, should never enter 
 this Hall on any occasion, but more particularly on an occasion like the present. 
 The effect of these, here or elsewhere, is to drive us into extremes; and in the 
 absence of reason they sometimes seduce even the best intellect into the laby- 
 rinths of folly — the purest heart from its devotion to correct principle. To say 
 the least of it, such legislation at present, if it should do nothing else, would 
 create much discontent, and necessarily engender many prejudices wholly in- 
 consistent with the harmony of the States, and that sort of equality of right that 
 constitutes the bond of our union. 
 
 We, sir, are from different portions of this Union, and to some extent repre- 
 [Gideon & Co., Pru\t.] 
 
2 
 
 sent different interests, but we are all of us bound by the same general obliga- 
 tion to support our common Constitution in all of its parts. 
 
 On questions in which neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution is 
 involved, there always has been, and there always will be, found to exist dif- 
 ference of opinion. In matters of this sort it is the duty of each representative 
 to obey the will of his constituents, or resign his seat, and give place to another 
 who will obey the voice of those who invest him with power. But, sir, when 
 it comes to the description of legislation in which we are now engaged, when 
 the effort on the one side is to secure the rights guarantied by the spirit of the 
 Constitution, if not by its letter — and on the other side to usurp those rights in 
 a great measure — I contend that there should be but one voice, there should be 
 but one great animating principle among us, and that should be justice to every 
 portion of the Union. Not that sort of meagre, attenuated justice that seems 
 to be justice, but which really is not. Not a mere limited assent to a great 
 principle founded in justice, but an honest, frank, manly surrender of all that 
 justice in its fullest sense, and the Constitution, when fairly interpreted, de- 
 mand at your hands.- This is what the liberal, the enlightened, the patriotic 
 portion of the American people everywhere want — this is justice — this is in 
 accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. Do this and you will do your 
 duty. Do this and you will restore peace to the country; you will quiet the 
 angry passions that are found to exist, not only in. this House, but throughout 
 this whole country, extending from ocean to ocean. 
 
 We have acquired a large district of country by virtue of a treaty with Mex- 
 ico at the close of a war, in which the South and the North equally participat- 
 ed, in which they both displayed equal valor. We are now deliberating on 
 the propriety of admitting California as a State, and as to the form of govern- 
 ment that shall be extended to the residue of the newly acquired territory. 
 
 The people of California have formed a constitution for themselves, in which 
 they in so many words inhibit the introduction of slavery within the limits of 
 the proposed State. According to the uniform opinion on this subject through- 
 out the South, the people residing in the Territory have the right to settle this 
 question; they have done so, and have sent their constitution here, asking for 
 admission into the Union, by their Senators and Representatives, who are 
 ready to take their seats when the door shall be opened, and California admit- 
 ted as one of the States of this Union. The objection has been urged by hon- 
 orable members, that there was no law of Congress authorizing California to 
 form a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union; but, if there is 
 anything in precedent, this objection can have no force, for other States of this 
 Union have done the same thing, and have been admitted. Tennessee, Ar- 
 kansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, and perhaps other States were admitted on 
 the formation of their constitutions, unauthorized by any previous law of Con- 
 
 - 0' 
 
 xA) 
 
gre.ss. The practice of admitting States in this way commenced in 179b, wh< m 
 Tennessee was admitted, and has been acquiesced in, to a greater or le.v- ex- 
 tent, ever since. 
 
 The Constitution declares that "new States maybe admitted by the Con- 
 gress into this Union," and this, in feet, is the whole power that Congress has 
 over this subject. Congress can admit States, but not create them. We have 
 ho power to make a constitution for a State. This must be done by the people 
 residing in the Territory. 
 
 But, sir, it has been intimated by honorable members on the other side of 
 this House, that the President, through his agent sent to California, (Mr. 
 Thomas Butler King,) procured the formation of the present constitution inter- 
 dicting slavery. This charge is not only not sustained by evidence, but is de- 
 nied both by the President and Mr. King, and I am advised that the Senators 
 and Representatives from California state, that there was no such interference. 
 The truth is, sir, the people of California were left by the last Congress with- 
 out a government, and they determined to form one for themselves. As was 
 well remarked by my honorable friend from Louisiana (Mr. Cobbab the other 
 day, it would be a very strange circumstance if the President could make the 
 people of California form such a Constitution as he wanted, and yet could not 
 make them send even one Whig Senator or Representative here to support his 
 administration. 
 
 But, sir, there are objections that, in my judgment, may be urged to the 
 immediate admission of California. In her constitution she has specified 
 such boundaries as suited her people; but are the members of this House pre- 
 pared to say that these boundaries are such as we should approve? In the first 
 article and second section of the Constitution of the United States, it is de- 
 clared that representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which 
 may be included within the Union according to their respective numbers, and 
 provision is made for the enumeration of the inhabitants of the States, having a 
 due regard to this apportionment. No census of California has been taken, and 
 I imagine that no gentleman is prepared to say that she has an actual bona fide 
 population sufficient to entitle her to admission. 
 
 She has sent on here two representatives to take their seats in this House. 
 Is she entitled to two or one, or is she entitled to any? I have seen no reliable 
 evidence of the number of her actual inhabitants. These are, in my judgment, 
 valid objections to the immediate admission of California. I recognise the right 
 of the people of that Territory to say whether slavery shall exist there or not; 
 but I do not recognise their right to demand admission into this Union before 
 they have showm themselves entitled to membership; they should first be able 
 to give the pass-word, and when they do this the door should be opened. But, 
 sir, with a precipitancy almost unprecedented in the history of this Govern- 
 
merit, we are asked to open the door and admit this new State, even before we 
 had time to read her constitution and see what it contained. 
 
 As a distinct proposition I cannot say that I am very much in favor of the 
 admission of California; but if, in connexion with the bill for her admission, a 
 government without the Wilmot proviso for the residue of the newly acquired 
 territory shall be supported by the North, I am willing to vote for her admis- 
 sion, notwithstanding my objections, because this will be a settlement of the 
 
 question. 
 
 On the subject of the admission of California, and the organization of a suit- 
 able form of Government for the residue of the Territory, a contest has grown 
 up between the North and the South— between the non-slaveholding and the 
 shareholding States of this Union. The North contends that this Territory shall 
 be free— that the Wilmot proviso shall be applied to it. The South contends 
 that she is a part of this Union; that this Territory as much belongs to her as 
 to the North; that they have the same right to take their slaves there that the 
 people of the North have to take any property peculiar to their region; that, 
 in both instances, according to the spirit of the Constitution, the same degree 
 of protection is extended to the one description of property that is extended to 
 
 %e other. 
 
 I do not propose to enter into an elaborate argument to show that Congress 
 does not possess the constitutional power to interdict slavery in the Territories 
 of the United States, but will offer a few thoughts on this subject. 
 
 I argue, sir, that such interdiction by Congress would be contrary to the 
 spirit of the Constitution, from a fact which I understand to be admitted by 
 every body— that the States of this Union are equal in dignity and in right. 
 The old thirteen States were bound together by the articles of confederation, 
 but, to "form a more perfect union," they adopted our present Constitution. 
 They asserted in their Declaration of Independence that they were free and 
 equal, which they afterwards maintained, and their sovereignty as States was 
 subsequently acknowledged by England. When the Constitution was formed, 
 therefore, the original thirteen States stood on terms of equality ; and that in- 
 strument not having been so changed since as to produce an inequality of right 
 mher among the States or the citizens of the States, I take it for granted that 
 hey are equal in dignity and in right yet. If this argument be correct, I would 
 ask Northern gentlemen if they are administering the Government according 
 to its genius and its spirit— if they are carrying out the intentions of the framers 
 of our°Constitution, when they seek to exclude nearly one-half of the people of 
 the United States from a participation in the benefits and blessings which may 
 accrue to them by emigrating with their slaves to a territory, for the acquisition 
 of which they fought as gallantly and bled as freely as the North? 
 
 When they come with their interdictions, seeking to appropriate the whole 
 
of this territory, because they may have the numerical force to carry their pro- 
 position ; when they seek to increase their own power by diminishing that of 
 the South — to increase their own wealth by diminishing that of the South — 1 
 say, when they thus come, not in the name of justice, nor in the name of tha^ 
 equality of right that belongs to all of the States, but in the disgusting name of 
 might, of power, of numbers, think you that they are then administering the 
 Government, so far as legislation is concerned, according to the spirit of the 
 Constitution? On the contrary, are they not destroying the sovereignty, the 
 equality of the States, and consequently violating, with an outstretched arm, 
 the very Constitution which they profess to revere, and under who.-e protec- 
 tion they have been blessed and shielded from injustice for the last sixty-three 
 years ? But even if Congress possessed the constitutional power to ex- 
 clude slavery from the residue of this newly-acquired territory, I deny 
 that they have the moral power to consummate an act of such manifest 
 injustice. The Constitution of the United States was formed to " estab- 
 lish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, 
 promote the general welfare," &c. Sir, how can the North, according 
 to their manner of construing the Constitution, " establish justice^'' when 
 the very course of policy which they propose is fraught with the most 
 flagrant injustice to more than 7,000,000 of freemen, constituting the entire 
 Southern portion of this Union? How can they "insure domestic tranquility 91 
 to the country, when the very end which they avow to be their chief object 
 will have a direct tendency to add fuel to the flame which Northern fanaticism 
 has already kindled and fanned, until the Hall in which we meet from day to 
 day is so filled with heat and smoke as to induce the fear, here and elsewhere, 
 that the conflagration has already commenced, and that ere long we shall see 
 the temple wrapped in flames? How can they promote "the general welfare," 
 when the very interdiction which they propose consults not " the general wel- 
 fare," but the welfare of the North to the manifest dishonor and detriment of the 
 South? They cry out, "Constitution," "Constitution;" "let us stick to the 
 Constitution" — and yet they violate, with an incorrigible indifference, the very 
 preamble to that instrument, because they refuse to " establish justice " when 
 they hold the scales in their own hands and have it in their power to do so. 
 They refuse to "insure domestic tranquility," when they have it in their power 
 to "pour oil on the troubled waters," and quell the strife and discontent that 
 threaten the harmony of these States. They refuse to "promote the general 
 welfare," when they have it in their power to settle this question in a manner 
 in which " the general welfare'''' will be properly consulted. They say this ter- 
 ritory is already free; that, by the laws of Mexico, slavery was abolished there 
 before we acquired it; and yet, in a wild spirit of fanaticism — in an unholy lust 
 for the gratification of sectional prejudices — they leap over the legitimate 
 
bounds of justice, of equality, of every thing in fact that belongs to ordinary 
 courtesy and propriety, to say nothing of State sovereignty, and usurp the des- 
 potic prerogative of declaring a country to be free which they say is already 
 free, when they know very well that such declaration is aggressive, and must 
 have the effect to arouse the indignant feelings of the South. Is it not enough, 
 if what they say is true, that the country is already free? Is it not enough, if 
 what they further say is true, that nature's God has laid a proviso on that terri- 
 tory more potent than that which bears the name of Wilniotl If, as they say, 
 God and the laws of Mexico have dedicated this territory to the "Frec-soikrs" 
 why do they seek to do a work of supererogation? Why build a mud fence to 
 protect a fortress which they say is impregnable? Why not organize a territo- 
 rial government for New Mexico and the residue of the territory not embraced 
 in the bounds of California, without the Wilmot proviso, and let the people of 
 the South test all these barriers to the introduction of slavery of which North- 
 ern men speak? 
 
 But, sir, what is the object of this wholesale crusade against slavery? A 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Stevens) came out boldly in a speech here 
 a few days since, and avowed his object; and, I suppose, in avowing his, he 
 a sowed the object of all those who are in favor of the interdiction of slavery in 
 the newly-acquired territory. He said his object was to confine the institution 
 of slavery in its present limits, and ventured the prediction that if it were thus 
 confined, in twenty-five years the States that now tolerate would abolish it. 
 Sir, can it be possible that honorable members who avow these objects would 
 willingly expose the slaveholding States to the alternative of surrendering up 
 fifteen hundred millions of dollars worth of property, or seeing their fertile, 
 their highly cultivated, their beautiful lands crimsoned with human gore? Can 
 it be possible that northern fanaticism has gone thus far? They seek to do by 
 indirection what they acknowledge they have not the constitutional power to do 
 directly — abolish slavery in the States. Is this no infraction of the spirit of the 
 Constitution? The gentleman speaks of surrounding the slave States with a 
 cordon of freemen, to witness, I suppose, with exultation, the fierce conflict 
 between the slave and his master. Why not go one step further, if this be his 
 object, and with his cordon of freemen cross the line, avow himself the cham- 
 pion of the slave, break the fetters that bind him, and make the bondman the 
 peer of his master? An enterprise of this sort would at least have the merit of 
 boldness and decision, and the people of the South would know exactly how 
 to meet it. Established by Divine authority, the institution of slavery is des- 
 tined to remain until the end for which it was first ordained shall be accom- 
 
 pli-hed. 
 
 Alae ! what stay is there to human stater 
 Or who can shun inevitable fate? 
 The doom was written, the decree was past, 
 Ere the foundations of the world were cant. 
 
3ir, suppose the honorable gentleman's object to be fully accomplished — 
 suppose the slaves of the South to be emancipated — they could never associate 
 upon terms of equality with the people of the South; the people of the North, I 
 am persuaded, would never so receive them. They could not be clothed with 
 all the immunities of the white man, and while they would thus be nominally 
 free, they would be the vilest of all slaves, the slaves of their own wicked pas- 
 sions. They would never be clothed with the elective franchise in the South; 
 they could never hold office there; and it is not probable that in the North they 
 would be invested with more rights than in the South. A marked inequality 
 would still exist. What, then, would still be the condition of the black man \ 
 Deprived of the privilege of the elective franchise, cut off from all equal social 
 relations with the white man, incapable of holding any office of honoi, he would 
 have no incentive to the practice of those virtues that lead to the elevation and 
 advancement of man. 
 
 " Lean abstinence, dark grief, and liaggard care, 
 The dire attendants of forlorn despair" — 
 
 would be his constant companions ; and these would be more dangerous to his 
 present and future happiness than the fetters which he now wears. Abolish 
 the institution of slavery, turn the slaves loose in our midst, and you unsheath 
 the sword which will never again be returned to the scabbard until one of the 
 two races shall be exterminated. 
 
 An honorable member from Ohio, (Mr. Campbell,) in a speech here a few 
 days since, said that the grand reason why he wanted to prevent the extension of 
 slavery was, that it is " a moral curse" to the slave and his master. It is a 
 very high evidence of that gentleman's goodness of heart, for him to manifest 
 such extraordinary interest in the affairs of the South, as to come all the way to 
 Washington to warn all those who tolerate the institution of slavery, that a 
 great " moral curse" is resting and abiding with and among them. I think 1 
 have read somewhere, that it was the custom of some nation, when any very 
 melancholy event had transpired, for those who were affected by it, to procure 
 the services of some one possessed of a very sympathetic heart to be the chief 
 mourner, and thus relieve themselves from all unhappiness by throwing their 
 griefs upon another. The honorable gentleman has taken the office of chief 
 mourner on himself voluntarily, and is found weeping over the " moral curse" 
 that is now resting on the slaveholding States. But, sir, before he exhausts 
 all his sympathy, I would advise him to make a trip through Kentucky and see 
 the condition of the slave. He will then be better able to see whether his 
 sympathy is needed, whether the "moral curse" of which he speaks is found 
 to exist as the necessary concomitant of slavery. If he will go there, instead 
 of finding the slave manacled and exposed half-clad, as he has seen him repre- 
 sented in abolition papers of his own and other free States, he will find him 
 
8 
 
 well clothed, living in a good, comfortable cabin, with every thing around him 
 necessary to his personal comfort. He will find more, sir ; he wdl find upon 
 our statute book a law made to protect the slave against improper treatment, 
 the purport of which is, that severity shall not be tolerated from the mastery 
 and when the fact is established, his slave shall be taken from him, and placed 
 where he will be properly cared for and protected. 
 
 Mr. Campbell said, (Mr. Johnson yielding the floor :) I did not speak of 
 slavery as a "curse" from personal observation of that institution, for I have 
 never resided where it exists. I quoted the opinions of Washington, Jeffer- 
 son, Patrick Henry, and other slaveholding statesmen of the revolutionary 
 times. I would now add another for the honorable gentleman's benefit. I 
 quote from memory from the first speech I ever read, made by a distinguished 
 slaveholder when I was but a boy. In 1827, Henry Clay closed a most elo- 
 quent speech on the subject of slavery by saying : " If I could be the instru- 
 ment of relieving the revered State of my birth, (Virginia,) and the beloved 
 State of my adoption, (Kentucky,) of this foul curse, I would not exchange my 
 honors for the proudest laurels ever worn by Roman conqueror." This, it will 
 be remembered, is the same Clay who has ever since that time been Ken- 
 tucky's standing candidate for the highest office in the nation's gift ; and in sup- 
 port of whom, since these sentiments were uttered, the honorable gentleman 
 and other Kentucky orators have discoursed eloquently to the people from al- 
 most every stump in Ohio and Kentucky. If, in denouncing slavery as a 
 "curse," I have offended the honorable gentleman, I throw the responsibility 
 upon Washington, Jefferson, and other slaveholding statesmen who are no 
 more, and upon Henry Clay, and other living statesmen of the South, whom 
 the country has honored. I will only add, in adopting their opinions, that 
 "where such men lead, who dares not follow ?" I would be glad to know 
 from the honorable gentleman whether he considers it a curse or a blessing ? 
 
 Mr. Johnson. I do not consider it a curse to the slave. 
 
 Mr. Campbell. Then I am surprised that the gentleman's philanthropy 
 does not induce him to insist on the repeal of all laws prohibiting the slave 
 trade. 
 
 Mr. Johnson. In 1775 — the date of the opinions of Washington, Jefferson, 
 and Patrick Henry, on the subject of slavery, as quoted by the gentleman — 
 there were but few slaves in this country, and slave labor was but poorly un- 
 derstood. Then slavery could have been abolished without detriment to either 
 race ; but now that the slave population is greater than the white and black 
 population was in 1775, it could not be abolished without ruin to both races, as 
 I have before intimated. But I can inform the honorable gentleman that his- 
 tory would seem to indicate that Washington had changed his opinion after- 
 wards, for he presided over the convention that formed and adopted our present 
 
Constitution, in which they not only provide for the continuance of slavery for 
 all time, but provide for the continuance of the slave trade for twenty years, for 
 the avowed purpose of increasing the number of slaves in the country. The 
 North and the South voted for this. The North imported the slaves, and the 
 South bought them. The North wanted the money for them — the South want- 
 ed their labor. I think, therefore, that the motion to repeal the laws inhibit- 
 ing the slave trade would come better from the -philanthropic North, since they 
 seem to have more experience in this work than the South. The gentleman 
 speaks of the opinion of the great statesman of Kentuckv, Mr. Clay. The world 
 knows Mr. Clay's opinions on this subject. But, sir, the gentleman is very in- 
 consistent, for where such patriots as Washington and Clay lead, he will not 
 follow. Washington was the president of the convention that formed our Con- 
 stitution, where slavery is recognised and the slave trade is encouraged. Mr. 
 Clay is for the admission of California, and in connexion with the bill for her 
 admission will vote to organize a government for all the rest of the newly ac- 
 quired territory without the Wilmot proviso. Now, sir, adopting the gentle- 
 man's motto, I say to him, " Where such men lead, who dares not follow ?" 
 It is admitted that Mr. Clay is in favor of emancipation ; but this question in 
 Kentucky last summer was settled by an. overwhelming majority in favor of 
 the continuance of the institution of slavery as it now exists. It is not reo-ard- 
 ed by the people of that State as a '"• moral curse." 
 
 It has ever been an exceedingly strange thing to me how it is that these 
 gentlemen of the North are so generally found sympathizing "with the condi- 
 tion of the South. They are always found advising the South to abolish 
 slavery. They are always found opposing its further extension, and they do it 
 all in the name of humanity. This is a very broad humanity that can embrace 
 not only all of their own objects of sympathy within their own States, but, in- 
 fluenced by a spirit of philanthropy as boundless as the universe, they exhort 
 the South to escape from the " moral curse" which they say is ready to over- 
 whelm them. They point them to the portentous cloud which they say is 
 ready to sweep over and destroy them. They urge them to tarry not for a mo- 
 ment, but to escape with all possible speed from the direful scourge which they 
 say is coming with the celerity of lightning — a scourge whose author is God, 
 whose end is the destruction of those who tolerate the institution of slavery. 
 Sir, by what motive are these gentlemen influenced in exhorting the South to 
 turn from slavery ? Why are they so very solicitous on this subject ? If slavery 
 is a "moral curse," the curse will fall on the South, and not on the North. 
 If it is an evil in any sense, the consequences of it must fall on the community 
 in which it exists, and not on that in which it does not. Why, then, are they 
 so much concerned ? They say that they are happy and prosperous ; we of 
 the South are rejoiced to hear it, because we are members of the same great 
 
10 
 
 national family, and in some sort " flesh of their flesh, and bone of their 
 bone." 
 
 They point us to their great cities, their beautiful farms, their golden har- 
 vests, their garners filled with the products of their labor, and say that these 
 proclaim to the world that they are great and prosperous. We of the slave - 
 holding States, in reply, tell them that we, too, have great cities, beautifui 
 farms, and that cornucopia is also in our land. But instead of rejoicing with 
 us, as we do with them, they seek to diminish our prosperity, they refuse to al- 
 low us to extend the area of our labors, because they say a great " moral 
 curse" is upon us. If the people of the South complain that Northern policy 
 deprives them of that just equality to which they are entitled, according to the 
 spirit of the Constitution, they are gravely told that a great " moral curse" is 
 upon them. If they say to the North, we poured out our blood, we spent our 
 treasure, and exhibited our prowess, as freely as you did in acquiring this ter- 
 ritory, and in the name of that equal justice that constitutes the glory and 
 boast of our Constitution, we demand the right to enter this territory with 
 our slaves, there to remain in security until such time as the people residing 
 there shall determine that slavery shall no longer exist among them; they are 
 gravely told that they must submit, because a great " moral curse" is upon 
 them. 
 
 For many years this spirit of aggression has been gradually developing it- 
 self. Congress was first petitioned to abolish slavery in the District of Colum- 
 bia, and the people of the South were then told that such petitions were only 
 gotten up by a few fanatics of the North, and that the better plan would be to 
 receive and refer them to appropriate committees. But not contented with 
 this, they have petitioned Congress to abolish slavery in the forts and arsenals 
 of the United States, where they are located in slave States ; thus, in both in- 
 stances, affording a place of retreat for the slave, even in the midst of a slave- 
 holding community. The abolition of slavery in these places would not only 
 be in bad faith, even if Congress possessed the power, but would create a de- 
 gree of excitement throughout the entire South, which, in my humble judg- 
 ment, if it should not be attended with more serious consequences, would cre- 
 ate prejudices and bad feelings that it would take whole ages to eradicate. 
 Laws had been passed in many of the free States to enable the master with 
 greater facility to take his slave when he shouid escape from labor ; these lawn 
 were passed in aid of the law of Congress on this subject. Most of the free 
 States have recently repealed these laws, and in one State (New York) an ef- 
 fort was made, directly in the face of the" Constitution and the law of Con- 
 gress, to force a bill through the legislature imposing a heavy fine on any citi- 
 zen of that State who should lend his aid to the master in taking his slave. In 
 many instances slaves have been aided in making their escape. Sometimes 
 
u 
 
 they have been induced to run ofF, and now the contemptible and dishonorable 
 machinations of Abolitionists have reached such an incorrigible degree of law- 
 less impudence that but few gentlemen, when travelling, will take a servant 
 with them if they expect to pass through a free State. 
 
 A member from Ohio, (Mr. Giddings,) in a speech here the other day, de- 
 nied that any law should be passed to secure the right of the master to his 
 slave when he escapes from labor. The power to pass such a law is expressly 
 granted by the Constitution to Congress; and yet, at this late day, when the 
 courts of this country have passed judgment on this question favorable to the 
 right of the master over his slave when lie escapes from labor, wherever found, 
 the member from Ohio, directly in the face of the repeated decisions of the 
 highest judicial tribunals of this country, is found openly and unblushingly ad- 
 vocating a flagrant violation of the spirit of the very Constitution which, when 
 he took his seat in this House, he was sworn to support. That gentleman 
 may be well satisfied with his own opinions, but his ethics will never suit the 
 South. 
 
 I understand that New Mexico has formed a government to suit her people, 
 in which there is nothing said on the subject of slavery; leaving this question 
 to be settled when she comes to form a constitution preparatory to admissioi- 
 into this Union. Why not adopt some such form of government for the whole 
 of the territory not embraced in the boundaries of California, and pass it in con- 
 nexion with the bill for her admission? How can the North object to this? 
 California has made for herself a constitution in which she inhibits slavery-. 
 Northern gentlemen are exceedingly anxious to admit her. New Mexico has 
 made a form of government to suit herself, in which nothing is said as to 
 slavery. Well, now, it seems to me that if gentlemen from the free States in- 
 tend to be consistent, if they intend to deal fairly with the South, if they intend 
 to act upon any principle that is reconcileable with that equality of right, that 
 even-handed justice which the Constitution was formed and adopted to secure, 
 they must now come up like patriots and statesmen, and say to us by their 
 actions, if not by their words — we are all of us members of this great national 
 family — we all of us look to the same Constitution for the security of our pro- 
 perty and for the protection of our liberty — we desire to respect your rights, 
 because you are American citizens, bound to us by the ties of interest, of pa- 
 triotism, and of affection, too holy to be discarded, too strong to be severed; 
 and although we are opposed to the institution of slavery, yet it is recognised 
 by the Constitution of the United States. This territory as much belongs to 
 our brethren of the South, and to their institutions, as to us and to our institu- 
 tions; therefore let justice be done — let us organize a government for it without 
 the Wilmot proviso, and if slavery goes there by the voice of the people, let 
 them have it when they shall form a suitable constitution and ask admission 
 
12 
 
 into the Union. If under such a system of legislation the institution of slavery 
 shall die, let it die; but if, on the contrary, it shall not die, but continue, as it 
 has hitherto done, to develop the resources of the country to which it is adapted, 
 in the name of justice, in the name of peace, in the name of that harmonious 
 spirit of concession and compromise which actuated the fathers of our Republic 
 when they formed and adopted our Constitution, in the name of the glorious 
 old Ship of State, which for more than sixty long years has borne us in security 
 and in triumph above the angry waves of faction that have lashed about her 
 prow, and sometimes swept harmlessly over her deck, let us join together, 
 subdue the factious spirit that has kept us asunder, and in a spirit of compro- 
 mise restore peace to the country. 
 
 Gentlemen from the North have it in their power thus to tranquillize the 
 country. Some few of them have already manifested a determination to do so. 
 If the entire North would come up in the same patriotic spirit, the difficulties 
 that now hang over the country, and fill the public mind with apprehension for 
 the safety of the Union, would be dissipated in an hour; peace would be re" 
 stored to the country, and this session of Congress shortened many months. 
 
 I, sir, have full faith in the wisdom and patriotism of the President; and in 
 expressing myself in favor of the immediate passage of a bill fixing a suitable 
 form of government for the residue of the territory not embraced in the bounds 
 of California, I do not consider that I am opposing his recommendation. My 
 object is to provide a government for a people who are in a measure without a 
 government. I am for accomplishing immediately what the President seems 
 to think time is necessary to effectuate. There is no difference, therefore, in 
 the principle maintained in his message on this subject and that which I am 
 advocating — the only difference is as to time. I think, sir, we owe it to the 
 people of the Territory to give them a government; they need protection, and 
 I am for extending it to them. I am willing to know the worst before this ses- 
 sion of Congress closes. Yes, sir, if the Wilmot proviso is to be applied to 
 this territory, I am willing, I am anxious to know it, before California is ad- 
 mitted; for although I will vote for her admission if in connexion with that bill, 
 I can vote to organize a suitable government for the residue, of the territory 
 without the Wilmot proviso; yet if Northern members are determined to vote 
 in California, and then to force the proviso on this territory, they will have to 
 accomplish their object without my vote, for I will not vote for the present ad- 
 mission of California under such circumstances. 
 
 If it were possible to carry a proposition of that sort, I should be in favor of 
 some such compromise as that made when Missouri was admitted. I prefer it 
 in fact, because it is a much shorter method of settling the difficulty; but it 
 seems to be the opinion of everybody, north and south, that no such compro 
 mise, in this House, would receive the support of one solitary Northern gentle 
 
13 
 
 man, and it would therefore be lost. The next best settlement of this question 
 is found in the admission of California in connexion with the organization of a 
 government for the residue of the territory without the interdiction of slavery. 
 When the people of the territory come to form a constitution for themselves, 
 and ask admission into the Union, they can then tolerate or inhibit slavery, as 
 to them may seem meet. Neither the South nor the North would then have 
 cause to complain. The South asks not the North to lend her power to force 
 slavery on a people who are opposed to it. The North should not seek to ex- 
 clude slavery from a people who are in favor of it. The only true principle, 
 therefore, under present circumstances, is to let the people residing in the ter- 
 ritory settle the question when they come to form a constitution preparatory to 
 admission into the Union. 
 
 It seems to me that the « sober second thought 1 '— the returning sense of 
 right and of justice among Northern representatives— must bring them to this 
 conclusion. If this should turn out to be the case— if, as representatives in the 
 American Congress from the East and from the West, from the North and from 
 the South, Ave can meet in a spirit of concord, around the altar of justice, of 
 equality, of patriotism, and of liberty, and settle this exciting question to the 
 satisfaction of the country— we shall not only disappoint foreign speculation 
 and foreign prognostication, but restore peace to our own country, and add 
 another to the many evidences that our fathers have already exhibited, that 
 man is capable of self-government. 
 
 Sir, there has been a good deal said about the dissolution of this Union, and, 
 although I regard not such an event as being possible, yet it is fit that we 
 should pause and see whence this disorganizing spirit comes. Judging from 
 the tone of some northern speeches here, one would suppose it all came from 
 the South. But, sir, it has been fostered and nurtured in the bosom of north- 
 ern fanatics, as I shall attempt to show by the speech of Wendell Phillips, of 
 Boston, who is a leading Abolitionist. This speech was made in the city of 
 Boston last May, at an Abolition meeting, and T put it to you sir, to this com- 
 mittee, to the country, if any such disorganizing spirit as this has ever 
 come from the South, not only during the present time of excitement, but 
 since the foundation of this Government But, sir, hear what this Free-Soiler 
 has to say for himself, for his party. " We confess that we intend to trample 
 under foot the Constitution of this country; we call upon you to do likewise. 
 Shall I tell you why? You can never make a revolution in this matter until 
 you make the common sense and the consciences of the people superior to 
 their statute books; until you arraign against the despotism of the majority 
 the conscientious convictions of the mass of the minority, whatever it be.'' 
 This, sir, is the language of one of the sober, patient, thinking men of the 
 North, belonging to the Free-Soil party. But hear him further. ' 'Daniel 
 
14 
 
 Webster says you are a law-abiding people; that the glory of New England is, 
 that it is a law-abiding community. Shame on it, if this be true; if even the 
 religion of New England sinks as low as its statute book. But I S ay 'we are 
 not a law-abiding community. God be thanked for it.'" This sir is the 
 language of northern fanaticism, fulminated against the Constitution and laws 
 ol tins country, against the union of these States. This is the spirit of dis- 
 union unmasked; but, sir, it can find no sympathy in the South. Will the 
 North frown it down? If you do not, it will continue to increase until it 
 spreads over the country to such an extent as to render this glorious Union a 
 thing no longer to be desired. 
 
 But, sir this same northern abolition disunionist, fearing, I suppose, that 
 his principles might be forgotten, came out in a pamphlet the other day, the 
 title of which is, "A Review of Mr. Webster's Speech on slavery," and in 
 his pubi.cat.on, speaking, I suppose, for himself and for his party, he says- 
 m are disunionists not from any love of separate confederacies; or as igno' 
 ran ol the thousand evils that spring from neighboring and quarrelsome' 
 States, bu we would get rid of this Union, because experience has shown it to 
 be m rts character and construction an insurmountable obstacle to the harmony 
 ol tne nation; and could we once 
 
 '£r^ e ,' ? nd tear t0 P ieces this great bond 
 Which keeps us pale' 
 
 m i continued apprehensions, we should get space for such a structure as 
 would insure the harmony of all the races which dwell on this continent, and 
 all the States that control it-an empire, ocean-bound on every side With 
 these v.ews Mr. Webster has no sympathy." He has not, and God forbid 
 that he ever should. It is left to fanatics, and those engaged in a corrupt 
 struggle for power, to entertain these opinions in a community where they 
 suppo fe that S01 , of p . nd ^ wm gecure promot . on> Let . t not ^ ^^ ^ 
 
 the disunion spirit of which we have heard so much comes from the South, 
 when the mouth-piece of the Abolition party claims that credit for his party 
 
 Sir, the eyes of all Europe are now turned to our country. They have read 
 the proceedings of the present Congress, and their papers are filled with com- 
 ments on them. The monarchies and despotisms of the world would be rejoiced 
 if our deliberations should terminate without restoring peace to the country. 
 They would hail the intelligence of the dissolution of this Union as the precursor 
 ol anarchy and confusion, perhaps of ultimate despotism. Their totterin* crowns 
 wou d then become more secure. I believe that the disunion of these States 
 would be attended with the most calamitous results, not only to this country 
 but to the cause of human freedom throughout the world. I believe that it 
 would be followed immediately by a border warfare, whose termination no man 
 now hving would be able to see-a war between friends, countrymen, and 
 brothers. I do not believe that the people anywhere are in favor of dissolution 
 
15 
 
 I am sure that Kentucky is not. I know the character of her citizens; I know 
 their unfeigned devotion to the Union; they have exhibited it on more occa- 
 sions than one, and when the tocsin shall again be sounded, adopting the sen- 
 timents of the great statesman of Massachusetts, their slogan will be, "Lib- 
 erty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." They are thoroughly 
 opposed to the "Wilmot proviso," but heart and soul in favor of the Union. 
 They believe this question will be settled to the satisfaction of the country. 
 They believe the honor of the South will be secured, her constitutional guar- 
 anties respected, and the Union preserved. Looking to these results, they 
 cherish no disunion sentiment. Avoiding all extremes, they look to the pre- 
 servation of their honor and the Union of these States as paramount conside- 
 rations. Invoking the same God who stood by our fathers and enabled them 
 to establish this Government, to preserve it until time shall cease, and all hu- 
 man governments shall be dissolved, they will say, "God palsy the hand that 
 touches the first pillar of this Union to displace it." This is the light in 
 which Kentucky regards this Union; it is the light in which she will ever 
 regard it, unless northern fanaticism shall gather more strength and come forth 
 with power to dishonor her; then, and not till then, will she hoist the flag of 
 disunion. 
 
 And, sir, if she should ever be forced to take up the sword in defence of 
 her hoDor, it will be wielded by her sons as long as there shall be one stalwart 
 arm left to deal a blow. But, sir, I like not to contemplate such a result as 
 this. I believe there is yet patriotism enough in the land to save the Union. 
 I believe that the God of our fathers — your God, Mr. Chairman, and my God — 
 will so overrule our affairs as to bring order out of confusion, peace out of 
 rife, and the blessings of union from the spirit of anarchy that stalks in our 
 midst. May such be the case; and when time shall cease, may those who, 
 in the providence of God, shall inhabit this land, be permitted to say to our 
 fathers in eternit}^, that the government which they established was only dis- 
 solved when the proclamation was made that time should be no more! 
 

 A* 
 
 A V. "•• aT °*i 
 

 « Jfe %. < -*^fe- - A^fc\ 
 
 
 
 JO. 
 
 
 ?s : y *° "\;^P ./ °* v^§?> *° A?^ y 
 
 • %/ ^ 
 
 /\<J^% ^ ,0* *«^A